Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The victim D, E, and the lower court’s court’s court, as a alternative, consistently consistent with the Defendant’s assertion of mistake in the instant case, “The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, requested the Defendant to do so on the street store operated by the victim D, and the victim D does not sell the alcohol because it was under the influence of alcohol.

As the Defendant said, the Defendant took a serious bath to the victim D.

Accordingly, the victim E refers to the defendant's diversity.

As the Defendant said, the Defendant expressed to the victim E that “this she must write, she must see,” and had the victim E face and sold as drinking.

“The statements of the victims are consistent with each other, and if they were not directly experienced, the contents of the statements are specific and consistent to the extent that they could not be made, and the circumstances leading to the statements are natural, and there are no circumstances that may lead to the false statements.

Therefore, according to the above statements of the victims, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the business of the victim D by force as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below and inflicted injury on the victim E, so the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

In addition, there has been a history that the defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of violent crime, and one week has not passed since the suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the same kind of bodily injury has become final and conclusive.

up to the trial of the defendant.